@tester13 While it seems likely the Vanilla team would liberally license the documentation, I don't see a license specified and I'm damn sure you didn't ask so that's a massive copyright violation. This is example #284 of you doing everything in the most annoying and unhelpful way possible.

I found threads about documentation license before to be sure (as people asked about this already), so do not accuse me of "massive copyright violation".If team wants license to be specified on my pages, I'll add this.Original did not have specified license on pages.

I think that you are extremely hard at me, while all I do is trying to help.I do not deserve this.

Vanilla documentation needs to be improved and extended and using forces of many developers and wiki engine is proper way to do so.

It is common for OS projects, so you could try different approaches, different tools. Yes, people rarely agree on things, this is why we must talk instead of accusing each other. But Mark position that we need perfect wiki and perfect bug tracker and, as result, do not have both, really hurts project today. And I think that being very smart he understand this.

And it could be done here with editing the current documentation (just to be in a role that allows it).

May be. But documentation needed reformatting either way.And no one want to ask permission to add few examples or fix few errors in text.I do not understand why we must hold so hard to documentation current location and engine used.For third-party developers it is documentation quality and coverage that matters.And it must be our real goal.

Because current location is the best one.I have never seen anywhere saying that they absolutely want to keep the current engine.I've already seen people writing a discussion and I've pm'ed the devs for some modification, and for either of those methods, it was applied.Sure it may be cumbersome, so an external wiki may be easier to get new contribution on docs, but it will only be helpful if once the info is compiled, it will be reverted back here. Otherwise, it's mainly just another site as any other one.

As I say, people can not agree on many things. And I do not agree that current location is the best one.And I much prefer to talk about this openly rather than see hidden fights under under the carpet.

That doesn't mean that the documentation shouldn't be here.What you say is just that docs are lacking, and they already know that, and they would welcome things done to improve that, but asking everybody to ditch the official site and go and use *your* wiki and *your* bug tracker is surely not helping the ecosystem. As for the bug tracker, the official devs won't go and look at it, as they already said to use github.As for the doc wiki, I guess it's more the way you barge your way in that's the issue, not asking the devs beforehand, and not even proposing to merge things later on, etc...

Basically, since you got into the forum, you do seem to want to help, genuinely, but the way you try to do it, is annoying.There's lots of message saying it *should* be this way or that.Some other time, things like your small bugs page is indeed really helpful for those encountering those issues, and getting a pretty fast answer that way.

I did not asked to ditch official site. Quite the contrary.I asked to make proper bug tracker and proper wiki on original site.As far as I remember Mark and Lincoln, core team need some perfect tools that do not exist on this planet yet :-)

Today situation with bug tacker is most annoying making many serious developers who starts to look at this project go away, because no one is able to see real bugs that team are working on, no priority list, no features list, no plans, no assigned tasks, nothign that you expect from any serious project be it OS or closed one.